Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Yes it was a good interview which put Walsh under pressure at times - Though at the same time if the INTERVIEWER comes from the position,that Froome and other Sky riders are doping, which was strongly inferred during the interview, it makes your job easier as the interviewer - Thought the interview lacked some balance.

The interviewer came from the position of, "given what you said about Lance's and Contador's speeds uphill, how can you not be suspicious of Froome". An entirely reasonable position and an oft-asked question in this forum/thread.

As usual you come from a good position with your post. I was thinking the same thing while listening to that interview. As an aside have you noticed the interesting moto rumblings? It is my opinion that this might very well be something and while all the focus has been on the PED's that somehow Walsh was snookered.

Moto rumblings are far worse for cycling than PED rumblings - Cycling bases itself on being an extreme sport, so some could see why cyclists would use PEDS - Less wriggle room with moto's, though we are a long way from finding any substantive proof in the Pro Peleton - Have to think a cyclist would never find a team if found guilty of mechanical doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Yes it was a good interview which put Walsh under pressure at times - Though at the same time if the INTERVIEWER comes from the position,that Froome and other Sky riders are doping, which was strongly inferred during the interview, it makes your job easier as the interviewer - Thought the interview lacked some balance.

The interviewer came from the position of, "given what you said about Lance's and Contador's speeds uphill, how can you not be suspicious of Froome". An entirely reasonable position and an oft-asked question in this forum/thread.

As usual you come from a good position with your post. I was thinking the same thing while listening to that interview. As an aside have you noticed the interesting moto rumblings? It is my opinion that this might very well be something and while all the focus has been on the PED's that somehow Walsh was snookered.

Moto rumblings are far worse for cycling than PED rumblings - Cycling bases itself on being an extreme sport, so some could see why cyclists would use PEDS - Less wriggle room with moto's, though we are a long way from finding any substantive proof in the Pro Peleton - Have to think a cyclist would never find a team if found guilty of mechanical doping.

They found one already. Femke!

If there was no chance of pros using them why did the UCI do its PR x-ray ipad thing?

Cheating in whatever guise will always be part of teams make up. You think some said, yeah a couple of pills during a race is ok, but i would never do blood transfusions? I bet it was and always will be, "show me the money"!

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Yes it was a good interview which put Walsh under pressure at times - Though at the same time if the INTERVIEWER comes from the position,that Froome and other Sky riders are doping, which was strongly inferred during the interview, it makes your job easier as the interviewer - Thought the interview lacked some balance.

The interviewer came from the position of, "given what you said about Lance's and Contador's speeds uphill, how can you not be suspicious of Froome". An entirely reasonable position and an oft-asked question in this forum/thread.

As usual you come from a good position with your post. I was thinking the same thing while listening to that interview. As an aside have you noticed the interesting moto rumblings? It is my opinion that this might very well be something and while all the focus has been on the PED's that somehow Walsh was snookered.

Moto rumblings are far worse for cycling than PED rumblings - Cycling bases itself on being an extreme sport, so some could see why cyclists would use PEDS - Less wriggle room with moto's, though we are a long way from finding any substantive proof in the Pro Peleton - Have to think a cyclist would never find a team if found guilty of mechanical doping.

They found one already. Femke!

If there was no chance of pros using them why did the UCI do its PR x-ray ipad thing?

Cheating in whatever guise will always be part of teams make up. You think some said, yeah a couple of pills during a race is ok, but i would never do blood transfusions? I bet it was and always will be, "show me the money"!

Pro-Peleton is not Femke - My guess is mechanical doping ( independent from a team ) would end a cyclists career.

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

But that cyclist could not do it on his own like he could with PEDs. He absolutely needs at least the mechanic staff.

Femke proves it is actually happening. We will have to wait on 60 minutes to see what they have to add.

edit: get rid of previous quotes

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Pro-Peleton is not Femke - My guess is mechanical doping ( independent from a team ) would end a cyclists career.

Was Femke not a professional then? Or do women not count?

Doping, chemically, should end an athlete's career but it doesn't if they make the right noises.

Any rider can claim they never knew their bike had a motor. My guess is that all those 'motorbikes' are not kept in team service courses but a police raid will be the likely thing to catch a team because UCI wont.

 

[Benotti69]

If Walsh wants to redeem his journalistic credibility he'll go after TeamGB cycling and show that is was state sponsored doping!

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Pro-Peleton is not Femke - My guess is mechanical doping ( independent from a team ) would end a cyclists career.

Was Femke not a professional then? Or do women not count?

Doping, chemically, should end an athlete's career but it doesn't if they make the right noises.

Any rider can claim they never knew their bike had a motor. My guess is that all those 'motorbikes' are not kept in team service courses but a police raid will be the likely thing to catch a team because UCI wont.

It's even worse. UCI will help teams avoid being caught by the police.
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/hidden-motors-uci-technical-manager-accused-of-alerting-others-to-police-operations/

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re: Re:

Pro-Peleton is not Femke - My guess is mechanical doping ( independent from a team ) would end a cyclists career.

Was Femke not a professional then? Or do women not count?

Doping, chemically, should end an athlete's career but it doesn't if they make the right noises.

Any rider can claim they never knew their bike had a motor. My guess is that all those 'motorbikes' are not kept in team service courses but a police raid will be the likely thing to catch a team because UCI wont.

It's even worse. UCI will help teams avoid being caught by the police.
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/06/hidden-motors-uci-technical-manager-accused-of-alerting-others-to-police-operations/

Cheers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Re:

If Walsh wants to redeem his journalistic credibility he'll go after TeamGB cycling and show that is was state sponsored doping!

yes State sponsored. Much the same as a athletic lottery for the O lympics. WE know and THEY know.

Does Walsh want to say it or print it?

SCAM

same with the USA track and field. all PEDS.

 

[gooner]

Is this RT I'm reading here?

Such a state sponsored doping that Damien Collins is questioning them at the Culture, Media and Sports committee.

Walsh should write about Ireland and state sponsored doping.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/sports-ireland-funding-increases-to-27-million-1.2537227

I'd be interested to know if anyone has details of this being knowingly invested in doping.

Facts, hey? Who needs them.

 

[sniper]

Widespread and in some cases systematic doping is ongoing in UK sports, there is no point in denying that.
A fact is that large segments of UK sports are state-sponsored.
It logically means that doping in the UK is for a considerable part sponsored by the state.

Whether knowingly or not, that is a different question.
But some pretty transparent schemes have been plotted to cover it up.

Tax payer money was used to put Reedie, Coe and Cookson in charge.
All three have been shown to be corrupt.

You could also ask the queen what's up with all those knight hoods for dodgy athletes and coaches. While that doesn't proof much, it does illustrate the culture of turning a blind eye.

And there are enough facts to argue that UKAD are corrupt.
UKAD are state sponsored.

Here's a bit more reading:
https://www.uksport.gov.uk/about-us
"Investment figures announced. More medals and more medalists for Tokyo 2020"
So while the intention to excel in sports is very patent in the UK at present, the intention to tackle doping is not so patent. The intention to *cover up* doping, is, on the other hand, quite patent.

Altogether it's hard to deny the reality of state-sponsored doping in the UK.
It's obviously of a different nature from what we find in Russia, but there are a series of plausible historical-political reasons for that. Thehog had a good post about that recently, the bottomline being: we're dealing with vastly different societies here, so obviously doping schemes are going to be executed differently.
These differences don't tell us much about *the extent* of doping, though.
Medal tables are slightly more indicative of that.

Sure, the CMS hearings into doping are potentially a great thing, although I wonder if it would have happened without the help of the Fancybears.
And they haven't yielded many results yet have they. Coe was heared by them too, and what happened there? Nada. Let's celebrate the CMS once they start achieving some tangible results.

 

[gooner]

Investment is to perform. Nothing suggests this is knowingly done for doping purposes from the National Lottery or at government level from the sports department as in a Russian scale.

Doping goes on everywhere. Is there state sponsored doping in Ireland based on the link provided above?

State sponsored doping has a specific meaning and this isn't it.

 

[gooner]

Such a state sponsored doping, Radcliffe was practically named at that Cuture, Media and Sports committee.

Collins too has questioned Coe in the past at it.

 

[sniper]

I agree. But it's a bit of a strawman. Let's see what is actually being argued:

I don't think anybody argues that doping in the UK has the same shape and form as in Russia.
So we agree, it's not "state-sponsored doping" in the traditional east-bloc sense of the word.
People do argue doping is happening on roughly the same scale in both countries.
And people are arguing that in both countries tax payers money is involved, which in the UK is particularly patent in the *cover up* of doping by means of a corrupt UKAD, and by placing their own people in key positions (Reedie, Cookson, Coe).

Now, people are openly questioning why the traditional state-oriented doping in Russia should lead to a punishment of Russian sports as a whole, whilst the more sophisticated Western methods that we see in the UK go largely unpunished.

 

[sniper]

Such a state sponsored doping, Radcliffe was practically named at that Cuture, Media and Sports committee.

Collins too has questioned Coe in the past at it.

Any tangible results the CMS can boast with apart from a public apology to Radcliffe?

And again, the state sponsored doping angle is a strawman.
Nobody is arguing that the UK government has plotted or knowingly implanted a nation-wide doping scheme.

 

[gooner]

Such a state sponsored doping, Radcliffe was practically named at that Cuture, Media and Sports committee.

Collins too has questioned Coe in the past at it.

Any tangible results the CMS can boast with apart from a public apology to Radcliffe?

And again, the state sponsored doping angle is a strawman.
Nobody is arguing that the UK government has plotted or knowingly implanted a nation-wide doping scheme.

Both Benotti and Glenn said it.

Plus

Widespread and in some cases systematic doping is ongoing in UK sports, there is no point in denying that.
A fact is that large segments of UK sports are state-sponsored.
It logically means that doping in the UK is for a considerable part sponsored by the state.

State sponsored doping has one meaning, not what you say from the point of view of investing in sports for training and preparation purposes to then come to that conclusion.

 

[sniper]

I think you misunderstood,

1. yes, the doping in the UK is to some extent sponsored by the state. Facilitators like UKAD, Reedie, Coe and Cookson are sponsored by the state. Simples.

2. Fair enough if you insist on the traditional meaning of "state sponsored doping" as in "nation-wide doping plotted, planned and executed by the government". But then do realize that nobody actually argues that that is what's going on in the UK.

 

[gooner]

It's not to some extent sponsored.

If there is no argument, you don't use the phrase then.

 

[sniper]

Re:

It's not to some extent sponsored.

If there is no argument, you don't use the phrase then.

People will use the phrase as they deem relevant and appropriate.
Some people deem it relevant and appropriate in the context of lottery- and state-funded dopers and/or facilitators like UKAD, Cookson, Coe, Reedie, and of course BC and by extension Sky (to the extent that it involves BC staff).

Compare it to US Postal if you will. State-sponsored doping, though obviously not in the old east-bloc sense of the word.

Again, nobody is arguing for nation-wide doping plotted by the UK government.

 

[sniper]

So to sum up (and fwiw), I agree with you that the term "state-sponsored doping" -- when used in the more traditional/canonical meaning of "nation-wide doping plotted by the government" -- does not apply to the UK.

If you argue that the term should therefore be avoided in reference to the UK, that's certainly fair enough.

 

[TeflonDub]

Re:

So to sum up (and fwiw), I agree with you that the term "state-sponsored doping" -- when used in the more traditional/canonical meaning of "nation-wide doping plotted by the government" -- does not apply to the UK.

If you argue that the term should therefore be avoided in reference to the UK, that's certainly fair enough.

Hypothetical statement:
"British Cycling have spent UK taxpayer funds in activities related to the use of performance enhancing drugs."

Who thinks a statement like that will come back to haunt you? Yeah, me neither.

 

[ontheroad]

Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.

Walsh is a tool and a fool. All those years chasing Armstrong he failed. It was Landis and the feds that took Armstrong down. Walsh played little part in it all in the end. But he has cashed in on it and Sky have used that reputation to blind the fans to their UKPostal team dominance of July.

 

[thehog]

Re:

Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.

Walsh is trying to save face. He became so ridiculous and he shut everyone out who even wanted to question his logic. Walsh's first Sky book was an open love letter to Sir Dave.

Brailsford played Walsh for a fool and is still playing him for a fool.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

Does Walsh still have full access to Sky? He has revealed this morning that Sky hired Tony Blairs former PR consultant to try and set up a press conference in which Froome would praise Brailsford but he then failed to do so.

Walsh is on a crusade at the minute which can be summarised as Big Bad Brailsford needs to go now whilst Fantastic Froome is a clean hero. Any story about Sky he writes always seems to try and separate Froome from any wrongdoing.

I'm not sure how Walsh's position is tenable as being the journalist with full access to the team. He has certainly revealed absolutely nothing since the story broke, this despite his Ccomments that Brailsford would regret the day that he allowed him into the team since he knows a lot of people who could tell him things. Walsh has been played for a fool and continues to be so.

Walsh is a tool and a fool. All those years chasing Armstrong he failed. It was Landis and the feds that took Armstrong down. Walsh played little part in it all in the end. But he has cashed in on it and Sky have used that reputation to blind the fans to their UKPostal team dominance of July.

A journalists' job is to inform as he did with sources. Any different to Lawton, is it?

It's like saying Damien Ressiot failed. That was enough for Armstrong's downfall. Journalists can't be blamed for incompetent sports governance that fails to act.